BOARD MEETING DATE: July 7, 2006
AGENDA NO. 35

(Continued from June 2, 2006 Board Meeting)

PROPOSAL:

Amend Rule 1157 – PM10 Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Related Operations

SYNOPSIS:

The proposed amendment simplifies and streamlines the implementation of the high wind exemption provision in accordance with a settlement agreement reached last year with the industry.  The proposed amendment specifies the additional dust control strategies that an aggregate facility must implement in order to qualify for the exemption.  The Governing Board has discretion to approve or reject the proposed amendment.

COMMITTEE:

Stationary Source, April 28, 2006, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution:

1. Certifying the CEQA Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed amendment; and

2. Adopting the Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1157 - PM10 Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Related Operations.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

Rule 1157 was adopted on January 7, 2005 to further reduce particulate (PM10) emissions from aggregate and related operations as part of the 2003 AQMP Control Measure BCM-08 – Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Manufacturing Operations.  The rule includes a high wind exemption that would provide impacted facilities with an exemption from the rule’s performance standards during high winds, provided that certain requirements were met.  However, industry operators argued that the eligibility requirements for the current high wind exemption requirements are impractical and difficult to implement.

Under the current high wind exemption provisions in the rule, aggregate and related facilities that meet the performance standards of Rule 1157 during high winds can continue their normal operations and supply materials to their customers.  Otherwise, these activities must be ceased, except for:

• activities at the concrete batching and hot mix asphalt facilities that produce materials for use in a construction project that is being paved or poured during high winds; and
• loading and transport of aggregate materials directly to the above mentioned facilities.

However, those facilities must prove that irreparable damage to the construction projects would occur if such operations are ceased during high winds.

On February 10, 2005, the California Mining Association (CMA) filed a complaint against the AQMD alleging, among other claims, that the rule contains an unworkable high wind exemption.  Specifically, in order to implement the exemption, a facility operator must know whether materials are being delivered to projects that will be irreparably damaged if deliveries are curtailed.  The exemption is unworkable because of the difficulty in tracking shipments to specific job sites that may not be known to facility operator.  On September 2, 2005, CMA and the AQMD executed a formal settlement agreement.  As part of the settlement agreement, the AQMD acknowledged the implementation difficulties relative to existing rule language and agreed to workshop agreed upon language to address the high wind exemption, to modify the language if necessary in response to public comments, and to present a proposed amendment to the Board.  The Board has discretion to approve or reject the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment would streamline and simplify the implementation of the high wind exemption for aggregate and related facilities.  It would allow the loading and transporting of aggregate materials during high winds as long as appropriate dust controls are applied.  Specifically, it is proposed that during active operations, water shall be applied twice per hour on unpaved roads that are not treated with chemical dust suppressant, and water shall be applied within fifteen minutes of each loading activity to stabilize disturbed areas on the storage piles due to loading.  The high wind exemption portion that is applicable to concrete batching and hot mix asphalt remains unchanged.

Affected Facilities

The PAR 1157 would apply to aggregate loading and transporting activities at approximately 29 aggregate facilities.  The existing exemption provisions applicable to approximately 45 hot mix asphalt and 100 concrete batching facilities in the South Coast Basin remain unchanged.

Public Process

A public workshop was held on February 2, 2006.  During the Public Workshop, the AQMD received verbal comments from CMA representatives supporting the new proposed high wind exemption language.  Written comments from CMA representatives addressed concerns regarding the AQMD’s emissions inventory and estimates of emissions increases related to this amended rule language.  Comments received during the February 2, 2006 Public Workshop are addressed in Appendix A of the Staff Report.  Written comments received on the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation are responded in the Environmental Assessment.

After publication of the Public Hearing Notice, staff received a comment letter from City of Santa Clarita.  In that letter, the City raised issues on potential increase in emissions and health risk, CEQA notification and comment period, opacity standards, and consistency of proposed amendments with Santa Clarita Valley Sub-regional Analysis.  Responses were prepared and sent to the City Manager and will also be addressed in the Final Environmental Assessment.

Proposal

The proposed amendments to the high wind exemption provisions would exempt facilities from compliance with Rule 1157 opacity standards during high winds if all normal operations are ceased, except for the following: dust controls, underwater dredging, and the transport of dredged materials to the surge piles.  In addition, the loading and transport of aggregate may continue, provided that: (1) appropriate dust controls are applied according to District’s rules, (2) during active operations, water is applied twice per hour on unpaved roads that are not treated with chemical stabilizers, and (3) water is applied within fifteen minutes of each loading activity to stabilize disturbed areas on the storage piles due to loading.

The high wind exemption portion that is currently applicable to concrete batching and hot mix asphalt remains unchanged as it allows those facilities to continue the activities to produce materials for use in construction projects which are being paved or poured during high winds, provided that dust controls are appropriately applied as required by AQMD’s rules.

Key Issues

According to CMA, the emissions impact, that is net emissions increase, from proposed amendments to the high wind exemption were over estimated; therefore, the proposed high wind exemption should be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis.  CMA argues that materials not shipped during high wind days are shipped within a 24-hour period.  In addition, other key concerns raised by CMA related to the use of the worst historical wind day and the determination of emissions increase.  Staff acknowledges that a worst-case scenario analysis compared to an average case scenario analysis will likely result in greater emissions impact estimates.  However, in evaluating emissions impacts under CEQA, staff is obligated to analyze reasonable worst-case scenarios.  Detailed answers to other CMA comments are included in Appendix A of the Staff Report.

The city of Santa Clarita raised several concerns regarding the proposed amendments and the implementation of the settlement agreement.  Key to the city’s concerns is their request that the rule remain as written and that the high wind exemption be addressed by the Board only after the remaining elements of the settlement agreement are resolved in their entirety.  This delay would allow staff to assess the potential cumulative impacts associated with all potential amendments to the rule resulting from that process.  Another key issue of concern to the city is the use of chloride-based chemical dust suppressants could be severely limited or even banned (on a case-by-case basis) by the Water Boards due to the potential negative impacts on groundwater.  They argue that reliance on the more frequent application of water during high winds and as a substitute for chemical dust suppressants in cases where chemical use could be restricted would not be sufficient to minimize PM10 emissions, especially during a Santa Ana wind condition. 

Staff has met with the city to more fully understand their concerns and have concluded that the issues do not warrant a delay in the adoption of the proposed amendments.  A delay in the implementation of the high wind exemption could delay industry compliance and subsequent enforcement of requirements that would immediately benefit air quality.  However, in the course of implementing the rest of the settlement agreement, staff will work closely with the City to further address air quality concerns that are outside the scope of this amendment.  Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, staff will conduct a cumulative impact analysis of this and future amendments resulting from implementation of the settlement agreement, if such amendments to the rule are deemed necessary.  Relative to the use of chemical dust suppressants, there is a need to allow for local restrictions and the rule provides for an exemption from use of chemical dust suppressants where a determination of potential contamination can be made.  Not all commercially available chemical dust suppressants are chloride based and may be used by the mining industry.  However, application of best management practices to prevent run off may be necessary to insure water quality protection.

It should be noted that staff does not intend to propose changes to any rule requirements that will increase PM emissions or reduce the effectiveness of required controls.  Staff is confident that these modified requirements will be sufficiently protective of air quality during high winds.  Detailed responses to these and additional concerns raised can be found in Attachment C to this Board letter and in the Final Environmental Assessment.

Emission Impacts

Since the new proposed high wind exemption language no longer restricts eligibility for the exemption to loading and transporting activities supporting critical construction projects (e.g., hot mix asphalt and concrete batching), there is a potential for an emissions increase from aggregate loading and transporting, as well as storage piles and unpaved roads disturbance.  Potential PM10 emission increases were estimated to be 252 lbs/day worst-case basin wide.  This emissions increase estimate was arrived at by utilizing a worst-case high wind day scenario based on historical meteorological data from AQMD air monitoring stations.

AQMP and Legal Mandates

Rule 1157 was adopted on January 7, 2005 to further reduce particulate emissions from aggregate and related operations as part of the 2003 AQMP Control Measure BCM-08 – Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Manufacturing Operations. 

PAR 1157 was designed to address the settlement agreement reached on September 2, 2005 with the CMA.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and AQMD Rule 110, an Environmental Assessment (EA) for PAR 1157 has been prepared.  The purpose of the EA is to describe the proposed project and to identify, analyze, and evaluate any potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from adopting and implementing the proposed amendments to Rule 1157. 

The only environmental topics identified with significant adverse impacts are aesthetics and air quality.  It was estimated that operational emissions could increase during high wind days by amounts exceeding the AQMD’s PM10 and NOx CEQA significance threshold of 55 and 150 pounds per day, respectively.  Because PM10 emissions contribute to poor visibility, staff concluded that the increased PM10 emissions during high wind days could create significant adverse aesthetic impacts in the vicinity of the facilities.  The Draft EA (SCAQMD No. 060209JK, April 2006) was circulated to the public for a 45-day review and comment period from April 13, 2006 to May 30, 2006.  Only one comment letter was received during the public review and comment period.  The comment letter and responses to the comment letter are included in the Final EA.  Some changes were necessary to make the revised Draft EA into a Final EA.  However, these modifications and updates do not constitute “significant new information”[1] and, therefore, do not require recirculation of the document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5.

Socioeconomic Analysis

PAR 1157 would affect 29 aggregate facilities in the four-county area.  The affected facilities belong to the sectors of construction sand and gravel mining and industrial sand mining.  Of the 29 affected facilities, 12 are located in Los Angeles, one in Orange County, 12 in Riverside, and 4 in San Bernardino County.

PAR 1157 would benefit affected facilities by eliminating delays in loading and transporting aggregate materials to end users and would result in cost savings or no additional costs as compared to the current rule.  However, it is not possible to quantify monetary benefits of PAR 1157.

There are three CEQA alternatives to the proposed amendments.  All the alternatives are either as costly as the existing rule or less costly than the proposed amendments.  Therefore, there are no additional costs associated with these alternatives.

Implementation and Resource Impacts

Implementation of the PAR 1157 is not expected to have an impact on AQMD fiscal resources.  The revised exemption will be easier to enforce compared to the current rule version where the District will have to verify irreparable damage claims.  Therefore, no resource impacts to the District are anticipated.

Attachments (EXE 1.4mb)

[1]  Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:

(a) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

(b) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

(c) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

(d) The draft EA was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.